European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 10A: 10A: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 1, paragraph 18, inserted Article 9D TEU, paragraph 2, relating to the Commission’s right initiative over Union legislative acts; and (ii) ”” The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the European Commission’s right to propose EU legislation and so it goes to the heart of the project of EU integration. This right of proposal by the Commission has its origins in the big idea which gave birth to the EU and which still, in the eyes of its supporters, underpins it today. It is perhaps worth recalling what that big idea was. It was that the nation states had been responsible for the carnage of two world wars and so those nation states, with their unreliable democracies, had to be emasculated and diluted into a new form of supranational government run by a commission of wise technocrats. That is also why, once the Commission’s proposals have been negotiated in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, or bureaucrats from the nation states—which takes place in secret, and once the Council of Ministers has signed the proposals off and they have been rubber-stamped, where necessary, by national parliaments, the Commission becomes the executor of all EU legislation. It is supported, when necessary, by that engine of European integration, the Luxembourg Court. New Artlicle 9D confirms this situation very clearly and it is worth quoting very briefly from it from the Lisbon treaty. It states: "““The Commission shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the ""budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties””." Article 2, to which this referendum specifically refers, states: "““Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise””." It would be very helpful if the Minister would let us know where the treaties provide for laws to be proposed other than by the Commission. Item 3 in Article 9D refers to the quality of these enormously powerful people: "““The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt””." I hope that it will be in order if I ask the noble Baroness the Lord President or the noble Lord who is to reply what they think about the recent appointment of Monsieur Jacques Barrot, who is the new EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner. I think that I am right in saying that Monsieur Barrot received an eight-month suspended jail sentence in 2000 for corruption and was later pardoned by no less a personage than Monsieur Jacques Chirac, who was involved in the same scandal. Are the Government happy that this man is now the EU Justice Minister? Since most of our law is now made under this process, do we want to go on with it? Surely it is the very antithesis of our democracy, with the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House wholly excluded from the process of making the majority of our law. I imagine that I will be asked: if the Commission does not have the quasi-monopoly on proposing legislation, who should have it? My colleagues and I do not believe that that right should be vested in the European Parliament. If it is to happen at all, it should rest with the Council of Ministers. But, of course, we do not want it at all; we want out of the whole thing. Were the project to continue, that would be our recommendation. I conclude by asking the Government what they think of this arrangement, which now makes most of our law. I also ask the Conservative Party whether it is happy with it. I beg to move.